15 May

Sticky

Inconsistent Verdict Form – Make Sure to Timely Object

The verdict form is a very important aspect of civil jury trials. This is the form the jury fills out during deliberation to determine liability and damages. Previously, I explained the difference between a general verdict form and a special interrogatory verdict form and the importance of timely objections to the verdict form. Be sure to consider and review (and, object, if need be) the type of verdict form submitted to the jury as well as the verdict form filled out by the jury (especially with a special interrogatory verdict form). With a special interrogatory verdict form, there is the possibility...

09 May

0 Comments

Sticky

Applying the Tipsy Coachman Doctrine

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal

In a previous article, I discussed the appellate doctrine known as the tipsy coachman doctrine, which stands for the principle that an appellate court can affirm a trial court even if the trial court reached the right result (supported by the record) but for the wrong reasons. This doctrine allows an appellee (party prevailing in the trial court and responding to appeal) that is arguing to affirm the trial court’s ruling to present any argument on appeal supported by the record even if that argument was not raised in the trial court. Dade County School Board v. Radio Station WQBA,...

16 April

0 Comments

Sticky

Purpose of a Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence

In order to avoid prejudicial or irrelevant evidence from being introduced to the jury by the adverse party, a party will file a motion in limine to exclude this evidence. “Generally, the purpose of a motion in limine is to prevent the introduction of improper evidence, the mere mention of which at trial would be prejudicial.” Buy-Low Save Centers, Inc. v. Glinert, 547 So.2d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Stated differently: “The purpose of a motion in limine is to exclude irrelevant and immaterial matters, or to exclude evidence when its probative value is outweighed by the danger of...

21 March

0 Comments

Sticky

Know Your Standard of Appellate Review Regarding the Admissibility of Evidence

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review, Uncategorized

The standard of appellate review regarding the trial court’s admissibility of evidence is an abuse of discretion. See Vavrus v. City of Palm Beach Gardens, 927 So.2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Castaneda ex rel. Cardona v. Redlands Christian Migrant Ass’n, Inc., 884 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Naturally, a party needs to preserve this issue by objecting to the admissibility of the evidence. If a trial court sustains an objection and excludes the evidence, the party trying to introduce the evidence should make a proffer / offer of proof. On the other hand, the standard of review for the trial court’s...

07 February

0 Comments

Sticky

Harmless Error and the “No Reasonable Possibility” Test

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Burden of Proof

The terms “harmless error” and “reversible error” are well known terms in the trial and appellate world. In a nutshell, a harmless error is an error committed by the trial judge that does NOT impact the fairness of the trial; a reversible error is an error that does impact the fairness of the trial. A party appealing a trial judge’s ruling (appellant) aims to establish that the trial judge’s ruling, etc. amounted to reversible error. The party responding to the appeal (appellee) aims to establish that there was no error, but if there was, it was harmless. If an error amounts to...

29 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Proffers / Offers of Proof when Trial Judge Precludes Evidence or Testimony from being Introduced

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence

What is an offer of proof or evidentiary proffer? During trial there are times where the opposing party objects to a question (testimony) and/or the introduction of evidence. If the judge sustains (or agrees with) an objection, the witness is precluded from offering testimony in response to the question and/or the evidence is excluded and deemed inadmissible. Ouch!! When this happens, it is important for the party trying to offer the excluded testimony or evidence to make a proffer or offer of proof in furtherance of preserving this issue for appeal. The reason a proffer or offer of proof of...

25 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Voir Dire and Reasonable Opportunity to Examine Prospective Jurors

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Standard of Review, Voir Dire

Voir dire, as mentioned in prior postings, is a very important part of the jury trial process. Voir dire is when the parties have an opportunity to examine and question prospective jurors in the context of their theme and case in order to determine which six jurors (and alternate) should be sworn in on the jury panel. The objective behind voir dire is to ensure that parties have a fair and impartial jury for your case.Williams v. State, 424 So.2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The right of parties (and even the trial court) in civil dispute to engage in...

18 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Application of the Business Records Exception to the Hearsay Rule

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence, Standard of Review

Hearsay (an out-of-court statement offered at trial for the truth of the matter asserted) is inadmissible at trial. But, there are exceptions to this exclusionary hearsay rule to allow such evidence / testimony to be admissible at trial. Previously, I wrote about one exception known as the business records exception contained in Florida Statute s. 90.803. The business records exception is commonly relied on in business disputes in order to admit business records as evidence. What if there is an appeal concerning the admissibility of evidence introduced at trial under an exception to the hearsay rule? Standard of Appellate Review Whether evidence is...

15 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Moving for a Directed Verdict and, then, a Motion to Set Aside the Verdict

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Evidence

Moving for a directed verdict is a standard procedure in a jury trial. Simply put, after the plaintiff puts on its case-in-chief (evidence supporting its claims against the defendant), the defendant moves for a directed verdict stating that even assuming all of the evidence is true and undisputed, and all inferences relating to that evidence favor the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to prove its case as a matter of law and a jury cannot reasonably enter a verdict in favor of the plaintiff based on that evidence. See Wald v. Grainger, 64 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 2011); see also Etheredge v....

11 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Expert Opinion Testimony and the Standard of Appellate Review

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Expert Testimony, Standard of Review

Previously, I discussed expert opinion testimony and the Daubert gatekeeping test employed by trial courts to determine the admissibility of the expert testimony. But, there is much more to expert opinion testimony. An expert witness is NOT allowed to serve as a conduit for inadmissible hearsay so that a party is using an expert witness to simply get in testimony/evidence that is otherwise inadmissible. Doctors Co. v. State, Dept. of Ins., 940 So.2d 466, 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“The rule is well established that if an expert is called merely as a conduit to place inadmissible evidence before the jury, the trial...